^ I don’t think the tie is cut off but only looks that way since his shirt isn’t tucked in. Go up 6 images and take a look at that picture. It looks like it’s from the same day and the tie/shirt combo looks about right.

Social justice and “Free Speech” at UC Berkeley? UC Berkeley? Really? Yes, I guess at the about the same level as found in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Opposing viewpoints? The firing squad or gulag. Analogous to today’s college campuses of zero tolerance.

Zeitgeist: naturally, you’re entitled to your own opinion — just as long as it is exactly the same as mine. No heretical variations or interpretations allowed.

Of course, people had something worthwhile to squawk about in the 1960s, unlike today where phony “injustices” and manufactured “grievances” prevail (see Matter, Black Lives).

Phony injustices? Seriously? Good, lord. I guess your nose is too far in the air to see what’s going on. To think that minorities are treated the same way as white people is the height of ignorance. I’m pretty far from a social justice warrior, but to think that there is actual equality is mind blowing. It’s just common sense.

I don’t walk out of my house at night and worry that I might get shot because someone thinks I look suspicious. I don’t get pulled over repeatedly because someone thinks I look suspicious. I didn’t go to schools that were falling apart. My life wasn’t ruined because mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent infractions. That’s because I’m white.

And saying that whites and minorities aren’t on a level playing field isn’t an opinion, by the way, in case you were going to use that old excuse – an excuse used generally when someone has no facts to back up what they say.

We’ve come a long way since the Civil Rights Act, there is not doubt about that. But there is still a long way to go. Might want to call Groton and get your money back.

Apart from the fact that they dressed better back then, the “Free Speech Movement” from the 1960s should not be contrasted with today’s crybully phenomenon at Yale, Missouri, and other universities. Rather, they are one and the same. In the 1960s, would-be campus radicals were protesting against UC-Berkeley’s rules that forbade them from recruiting new members, holding protests, etc. Now their ideological heirs protest against speech that might recruit someone away from their side. The campus radicals are consistent – they just want to secure and maintain power. Free speech when it helps achieve that goal; speech restrictions when they are better suited to the task at hand. “By any means necessary.”

Yeah…that’s not really true, though. Maybe in some instances, but those people don’t speak for the free speech movement as you call it. I mean the ACLU has repeatedly supported the KKK’s right to assemble.

It isn’t what I call it. The “Free Speech Movement” is a deliberately misleading term of art that refers to campus protests that started at Berkeley in the 1960s, depicted in the photos above and led in large part by Mario Savio, the guy with the square-ended, narrow tie.

The ACLU was founded in 1920 and yes, it does defend actual freedom of speech.

While at times their specific goals might align, the ACLU and the “Free Speech Movement” and its heirs are not the same thing. For example, the ACLU recently spoke out against the University of Missouri’s safe space ban on “hurtful speech.”

Fair enough. I have no problem conceding the point that the free speech movement and the ACLU are two different things. Honestly, I thought you were referring to organizations that often deal with free speech issues, rather than reference a specific movement related to Savio. So that was my misinterpretation.

In my campus dealings with free speech issues, the people I came up with were certainly more in line with the ACLU’s vision of it than the one you say Savio represented. This was about 15 years ago. We were almost exclusively free speech advocates and frankly, we were free speech purists of the Brennan variety (when he was at his best, at least).

In any case, I appreciate the clarification as I certainly am not in the business of misrepresenting anyone’s argument.

With respect, you write as though you should be living with some sort of guilt that you are white. For the most part, blacks are in the position they are in chiefly because of their own actions. Black people are overwhelmingly shooting each other. If there is an incident of a white person or a white cop shooting a black person, it becomes news for two months. I would believe that would be the case with getting pulled over for looking suspicious.

White people are to blame for the crumbling schools and housing projects that generations of black families have been subjected. White liberals. White liberals and the black hustlers whom black people seem perfectly comfortable acting on their behalf.

I think it is insulting to black people to expect so little of them in a country that, with obvious flaws, offers so much more than the rest of the world. It is insulting to them also to see them as blacks and not just Americans. I will always refuse to refer to a black person as an African American unless they have dual citizenship.

The clothes of the people in the pictures are certainly in better taste than those that the whiners of today are wearing. Generally, most things, I think, were better-cars, music, architecture, et al. And lets not forget that it was republicans that made most of the freedoms black people enjoy, then and now, possible.

@William Richardson – You mention anecdotes with no verification of their validity. Like I said before, it’s easy for people to speak in sweeping, anecdotal generalities and pass them off as fact. Black hustlers and white liberals are to blame! Well, of course they are, because you are neither of those things, I presume. So naturally it’s easy to shirk responsibility.

Here are some cited statistics, which I pulled up in about 15 seconds of searching:

– African-Americans comprise only 13% of the U.S. population and 14% of the monthly drug users, but are 37% of the people arrested for drug-related offenses in America. – 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project

– The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes.

– 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. – A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin.

Racism is systemic, especially in the criminal justice system. I’m not saying we point fingers. I’m saying we try to right a listing ship. I understand that you can’t be swayed, though, and you’ll tell me the statistics are from white liberals wracked with guilt. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

I am as responsible for the plight of black people in America as a white child who will be born next year. What you would refer to as anecdotal evidence is the honest interpretation of what I have seen every day. I am always going to be skeptical of statistics which do not support what I already believe to be true. Do you not consider your sources for possible bias? The Sentencing Project and Ms. Pager, I would bet, have a bias toward skewing data to prove a point. For example, the College of East Anglia and the email scandal in which it was discovered that thousands of emails were sent about hiding evidence that global warming, or as it is now called “climate change” was actually occurring.

I confess to being confused by the right’s skepticism to outright denial of climate change. Is it simply because it’s a major issue to the left, and it smacks of unwashed tree-hugging hippies of the ’60s? We all share this planet, and it’s the only one we’ve got for now. Earth evolved to its delicate balance before industrialization, and surely all our human activity must have an impact.

I’m not deeply versed on the issue, but common sense seems like it would side with the notion that advanced civilization must be having some impact, and I don’t understand the resistance to this notion from the right.

@ Will. I do appreciate that almost any data can be construed to prove one’s point. We both can certainly agree on that. I feel that we’ve reached an amicable impasse. And seeing as that I want to take a long walk before church I think it’s probably best left there, at least on my end.

Also, I’m not what most people would consider a liberal. Many of my friends who are decidedly left of left would probably call me a centrist as I pull ideas from both the center-left and center-right. I’ve been accused of being a Rockefeller Republican and a (Bill) Clinton Democrat. I don’t really care for classification, though, as it really does little other than allow someone to lump me in with a large group of people with whom I agree about 50% of the time. In any case, I hope you all are enjoying this lovely autumn day.

Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals really enlightened me on this issue. It’s not a race issue, its a CULTURAL issue. For years, I’ve wondered why an economically prosperous country can be so far ahead than its geographically adjacent and racially identical neighbor. The answer is “culture.”

Of the white liberals I’ve met, very few of them think of a “black person” as a PhD from Nigeria, or an young investment banker who has Zimbabwean parents (oh yeah, they exist). Re: affirmative action, Sowell posits it doesn’t benefit the child in the ghetto (one who needs it the most), it will benefit the minorities who are already established in life (Harvard undergrad, white collar worker, etc).

The book has real stats. One interesting one shows the grade discrepancy between the north and the south. Basically, black northerners score higher on average in standardized tests than white southerners. Why? Culture. Southerners just don’t want to, like, read real nice, and, like, talk real smart-like. They just be fixing to do this or that, clinging to their bibles and doubting any scientifically established fact, like evolution, or climate change.

Sowell also tackled “racial quotas” at Ivy League institutions. He argued that they have actually had the opposite effect; making them less diverse.

What it does is screen for “skin color” and not for real cultural/mental diversity. Most of the minorities, he argues, at ivy league schools today have privileged backgrounds and are more like their privileged white classmates than they are underprivileged minorities.

So when I hear people talk about race in large brush strokes, while not factoring in cultural influence, I tend to stop listening.

Chewco – Though I don’t discount Sowell as a reputable and well educated source, he is a free-market conservative doing research at a similarly minded think tank. So like Will said above, we can manipulate the data as we see fit to our viewpoint, whether it be liberal or conservative. You mention “real stats” as if the stats i offered were fake. Maybe my stats are shaded to promote a viewpoint, but I would dare say that Sowell’s stats are doing the same since he is clearly someone who is a proponent of free markets (a term that carries water for more than just an economic model).

Basically, what I’m saying is, the source of information is just as important as the information itself and all of it should be taken in context with the author’s biases. Ok, I’m really leaving now! It’s been fun, guys!

So much of what has been promised to us by the climate change people simply has not happened. Almost all data is based on computer models. From the ice age in twenty years which was promised to us in the 1970’s to the global warming which hasn’t happened to the rising sea levels which haven’t happened to the fact that they must change the name to climate change and most recently to climate weirding, Recently it has been revealed that the polar ice caps are not melting but are expanding. The email scandal of the College of East Anglia simply buttressed what I already believed about climate change. I would hope that everybody would consider a source before buying into anything, whether it be conservative or liberal. If credible information comes out to the contrary, I will be the first person to say that I was wrong.

Your southern dialect writing is about as convincing as Hillary’s-“I ain’t noways taared”. I will only claim to speak for myself, but I sincerely do not like wondering whether a fellow human being, whose skin color happens to be darker than mine, became what he is through affirmative action. The people who are responsible for that, and I think we all know who they are, should be ashamed of themselves, if they are capable if shame.

Please forgive any grammatical or spelling errors that may exist in my recent posts as I am on the Chesapeake Bay with a light breeze and electric blue skies and a fridge with Hendrick’s Gin.

Will Richardson: “For the most part, blacks are in the position they are in chiefly because of their own actions.”

This is the fairy tale version of American history. And if you believe this you will also believe that George W. Bush acquired power in America because of his character, intelligence, and work ethic.

Will Richardson: “Recently it has been revealed that the polar ice caps are not melting but are expanding.”

Where is Will getting his information from? Even Exxon acknowledges climate change now, but is being sued in New York for the possibility that they misled stockholders in the past.

From the Washington Post article on this:

“In the 1990s, Exxon Mobil took stances that expressed skepticism about climate change. For instance, in 1997 Exxon CEO Lee Raymond stated in Beijing, “Many people, politicians and the public alike, believe global warming is a rock-solid certainty. But it’s not,” according to a contemporary media report.

But matters have changed since then and the company’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has called for a carbon tax.

“Exxon Mobil recognizes that climate risks are real and responsible actions are warranted,” said its vice president of public and government affairs, Ken Cohen, on a press call regarding the subpoena. “We have a commitment to helping address this important societal challenge.”

To believe that the “system” is somehow out to “get” or “suppress” black people smacks of Alice in Wonderland lunacy. The world according to Al Sharpton. Liberal whites aiding Black-think: “I better not go outside because a white cop might be hiding and waiting to shoot me (Michael Brown!), or to persecute me unfairly for daring to drive an automobile while sporting the wrong skin color.”

Racial profiling? Well, don’t you think the fact that minorities commit 85% of all violent crimes in America might catch law enforcement’s attention? Like it or not, urban crime has a black face, and how many of the headline blacks shot by police were resisting arrest?

Question: is the average murderer today likely to be: A.) An 80-year-old Asian grandmother, B.) a five-year old white girl, C.) a Harvard graduate, or D.) a young black male?

No group since the 1960s has been given a better chance to improve their lot than blacks. But few have taken advantage of programs flagrantly tilted in their favor. Instead, they’d rather blame Whitey.

@Groton76 No one said white cops were hiding and waiting to shoot black people, so don’t put words in my mouth, OK? Seriously, don’t do that. It’s offensive to intelligent argument.

If you want to have a discussion, I’m happy to do that. You can see above that Will and I had one and though we didn’t agree, we at least were able to be intelligent about it. You, instead resort to histrionics and set up a straw man quiz. Those are the tactics of someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

You mention one statistic, but fail to cite it, so I have no idea where you got the number. You also say minorities in the statistic, but then go on to speak about black crime. Blacks aren’t the only minorities, so that makes your statistic a bit fishy to begin with. And as we established earlier in this thread, you can parse statistics any way you want to prove your point.

Try this one: the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), whose research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies. From their website:

“Through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined 6.9% per decade over the satellite record”.

There is a map which shows the current extent of ice in comparison to what it used to be, showing that it has shrunk.

No one denies that the climate is changing, so the phrase “climate (change) deniers” is a delberate smear against those who doubt the narrative that the left presents on the climate.

Note also, as Mr. Richardson did, the rebranding from “(anthropogenic) global warming” to “climate change”; this happened because the globe has been cooling since the 1990s. It is also convenient, because it means that any weather anomaly can be blamed on “climate change.”

This also raises an important question: is the climate supposed to change, or is it supposed to be stable? The climate change crowd acts as though it should be stable, when the reality is that it is anything but.

There were periods when the global climate was significantly warmer than now: the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman age, and the Jurassic Era are three that spring to mind. Furthermore, some of the warmest years of the 20th century were before significant human production of greenhouse gasses. Mars has been experiencing global warming recently. And we are to believe that human activity—more specifically, the actions of Western civilized countries (the ones covered by the Kyoto Accords, unlike China and India, which were delberately excluded and yet are massive polluters)—is responsible for what’s happening now?

Also, we were in a mini ice age until very recently (19th Century, I think). What do you suppose happens after an ice age?

A problem that besets climatologists is data collection. Many sites where temperature data are gathered have gone from rural to urban, but urban areas are massive heat sinks. This skews the data, making the temperature information from such sites unreflective of actual changes, yet that is not factored in to (many) equations.

More importantly, there are huge problems with the behavior of the AGW camp. If this were real, then why lie? Why suppress dissent and data that disagree with the mainstream view? (cf. the East Anglia Climate Research Unit e-mail scandal.) Climate “science” is highly political, and has very little to do with climate anymore, and more to do with promoting a certain point of view. Do an Internet search for “orson scott card hockey stick” and you’ll see the lies and deceit, the deliberate deception that are at the heart of the climate alarmists. They’ve been performing their “blame the West/blame the humans” schtick since the 1960s; from global winter to overpopulation, they have been wrong on everything. Why believe them now?

Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately represented in the prison population because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Furthermore, sentencing guildelines require that criminal history be taken into account; since black criminals tend to have longer criminal records than white criminals, they get longer sentences for the same criminal offenses. (I can’t provide links, but I can provide a source: “The Bell Curve” by Herrnstein & Murray.)

For the past four or five decades, white Americans have bent over backwards to give black Americans the benefit of the doubt, a helping hand, a second chance. Affirmative Action has discriminated against more-qualified white and Asian applicants in favor of blacks and Hispanics. As a group, modern white Americans are the most colorblind, least racist group in the history of the world. Billions of dollars have been transfered from white America to black America, and what do we have to show for it? While some have taken advantage of opportunities and have put in the hard work required for success, what we mostly see is dysfunction on an unprecedented scale, and much of that dysfunction, such as the breakdown of the black family and its attendant anti-social behavior, is largely the fault of the “progressives” and their attempts to build the power of the state by getting more people dependent on it.

So while I agree with the premise that most people, regardless of race, are the authors of their own misery—and the blacks who choose crime, drugs, and promiscuity are culpable for the misery they sow—the left has actually made the lives of blacks worse through their misguided programs to try to improve the lives of blacks. 150 years ago, Frederick Douglass saw that white interference in the lives of blacks was doing them “positive injury.” It still is. I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with the liberals—that white people are harming blacks—but I arrive at that conclusion from an entirely different direction from they, along with an entirely different idea of what should be done in response.

Henry is actually arguing against himself. The same thing happened in the 60s. Conservatives wouldn’t recognize the seismic shift occurring then, and wound up having control of government and most institutions wrested from them. I’d say the same is happening now.

When you look at the college campuses, younger folks are demanding greater sensitivity to differences between races, ethnicities, religions, gender and sexual orientations. While the proverbial pendulum may have overextended itself, you can’t deny the shift taking place. The best and the brightest of America’s near-term future are demanding greater inclusion, and it’s on their terms, not some flawed conservative ideas that serve a dying elite rather than the emerging America as they are starting to define it. Blaming blacks (and, of course, liberal whites) for all their problems and citing crappy, pseudo research books like the Bell Curve as evidence ain’t gonna cut it with these kids.

But it doesn’t stop there. The move to defund Planned Parenthood has been a real hit with young women and minority women. Putting up a wall across the southwest is a terrific way to include the Latinx population, and fighting affordable health care for the average Jane & Joe while at the same time demanding that rich get even more tax breaks seems to me that conservatives are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but shooting off both feet. And let’s not forget canning public education — that’s another inducement for minorities, non-whites, and the middle class. Really, is it any wonder Trump, Carson & Fiorina — all political outsiders — are leading?

Conservatives have become so hardened to the right that Hillary is going to be a shoe-in. Yeah, yeah, you’ll hate it and I can already hear your bitching and moaning, but just remember, you are doing it to yourselves.

@ Talie — I hope you didn’t pay good money to train your mind to think it thinks it’s clever.

Today’s events remind me of a foolish position Mory’s once took, which concerns a student protest from days gone by. It was in the early 1970s. Mory’s issued an urgent letter to its membership requesting contributions to a legal fund. Mory’s was in a legal fight with women and needed to raise funds to cover mounting legal expenses.

Despite women being admitted to Yale in 1968, Mory’s staunchly refused to admit women–Mory’s not only banned women from becoming members while continuing to admit male students, but wouldn’t allow them to enter the club (this had been their practice for decades). The fight got nasty. Students protested and picketed. Kingman Brewster stopped faculty and other University functions from being held at the club. When the club’s liquor license was up for renewal at the Connecticut Liquor Commission, the women filed a suit to revoke Mory’s liquor license claiming illegal sex discrimination and illegal constituion of the club’s board of directors. The women won.

Mory’s continued to fail to see that the times were, indeed, a-changing and continued to fight the women for the next few years. Of course, it was futile. Mory’s had to cave in and finally admit women. No one thinks much about it today, but the same kind of attitude was, of course, held by many back then about women as I read here today about minorities. Men no longer define women’s proper place and in the not-too-distant future, I think such attitudes regarding minorities also will be seen as silly ideas of the past.

@ Will — I think the difficulties conservatives are having and will have aren’t being addressed by recent elections. I could be wrong, of course, but I really do see a sea change coming and conservatives–as they always seem to be when it comes to social change–are on the wrong side of this change.

I confess to being deeply worried about the conservative movement. There needs to be a loyal opposition no matter who is in control, but the conservatives are no longer reality based.

In fact, this discussion is causing an existential crisis. Can I continue to wear oxford cloth, flannel, tweed, and ancient madder when so many of my fellows essentially think the world is flat? What to do, what to do?

@RJG “In fact, this discussion is causing an existential crisis. Can I continue to wear oxford cloth, flannel, tweed, and ancient madder when so many of my fellows essentially think the world is flat? What to do, what to do?”

Don’t let em win this one! Let’s take back The Look! Let’s picket in our 3/2s and pennies and button downs and Wigwams! Let’s lock arms around J. Press when they try to enter! Flat Earthers, I say too you…Not in Our Name!

Somehow I think Will, Henry and Groton have turned me from a centrist into a liberal. A liberal! Thanks, guys.

Why do I doubt your concern for a loyal opposition? Regarding how we dress. Well, I will continue to wear 3/2 roll coats, Harris Tweed, properly rolled collars on my oxford cloth button downs and long wing Alden shell cordovan shoes (recent acquisition). May I respectfully suggest you pair your ancient madder ties with a Members Only jacket and leg warmers? An Abba cassette tape to complete the ensemble.

Actually I was thinking of low-rise distressed jeans, maybe a tattoo or two, a black t-shirt, and a fleece hoodie. It’s that bad.

But you shouldn’t be so skeptical about my concern for intelligent debate. William F. Buckley Jr. was familiar with the use of evidence and consecutive, reasoned argument. I always enjoyed watching Firing Line without being an adherent of his point of view because of the give and take.

It occurs to me that an Ivy purity–cut, cloth, the whole kit–can constitute a subtle but potent middle finger to at least a dozen things all at once. “Things” is admittedly vague. Not easy to articulate. Certainly it’s an act of rebellion against fashion. Peruse the pages of a current Esquire or GQ–particularly the ads; the shiny fabric and hideous tailoring. That noted, it’s a punch in the gut for the polo shirt-and-Dockers crowd. Ivy as protest movement.

After Paris, and news of the 300th black murder in Baltimore, Donald Trump has already won the presidency. I don’t think he’ll even bother debating the clueless, devious Hillary next year.

Thankfully, the Donald isn’t a Republican (i.e. John McCain, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the other idiots), but transcends and is above petty parties. He’s also on the right side of history which is rapidly swinging away from liberal, politically correct nonsense and towards a new rationalism. What’s been flagrantly going on in America since the 1960s defies reason or common sense. I know of no one who believes we’re a better country today than we were thirty years ago. In fact, in many aspects we aren’t even a country anymore.

And I would like to ask those who fervently support racist black and Latino hate groups (Black Lives Matter and La Razza) where they think all this will lead? To an enlightened, all-inclusive utopia, or a return to separate white and black restrooms and drinking fountains? In my opinion, the trend is definitely moving towards the latter.

Milton Friedman was a classical liberal, so was Larry Hilibrand, and so am I (though not a pure-libertarian, because like conservatives of today, those have also strayed passed their roots *cough* *cough* Rand/Ron Paul).

The old adage stating: If there is a pothole outside your drive way, it is YOUR responsibility to pave it. Ideologically, I believe this to be true.

I identify as a conservative. Most reasonable people I know are. But I am NOT a republican, by today’s standards. The difference between Goldwater and Rockefeller, by today’s standards, would be like comparing what John Ellis Bush Bush said in the morning to what John Ellis Bush Bush said in the evening (i.e. VERY little difference).

Where as the difference between, say, Spiro Agnew and Ted Cruz is like the difference between ham hock and creme brulee!

Cruz’s speech (sound, cadence, rhetoric) is SOOOO oleaginous, I can’t imagine ANYONE actually believing a word that comes out of his mouth. He is what psychotherapists refer to technically as a “jabroni.”

“A Liberal Republican” wrote: “If you think that “illegal alien” is the statutory term for an unauthorized immigrant, you might be an extremist (or perhaps just intellectually dishonest).”

Looks like the federal statute found at 8 U.S. Code 1365 is an extremist. Or perhaps we’re just talking about being intellectually dishonest.

8 USC 1365

(a) Reimbursement of States

Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban national who is convicted of a felony by such State.

(b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony

An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully and—
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and—
(A) whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or
(B) whose unlawful status was known to the Government,
before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.

I remember so well Llewellyn Rockwell standing alone in late 2001 saying going to war with Iraq was a very, very bad idea. I thought him remarkable because he was the only person I heard expressing reason at a crazy time. No one listened to him, of course. Our Republican president and his staff knew better. There were Weapons of Mass Destruction to be found and destroyed, by god! America’s honor is at stake and all that BS. And, today, nearly 15 years later, we are still pouring money into fighting that war we never should have gotten into. Good money–really good money–that could be used to do important things that would better everyone’s life, just continues to pour it down a Republican rat hole. Think about that. What could we have done with the trillions and trillions spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? More bridges, more schools, better libraries, better health care … the list is probably endless. Ever think about this? Rockwell did before it all happened and expressed it very clearly. Where were you conservatives? Probably jumping up and down yelling death to Sadam!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, this crowd will blame Obama for prolonging the war. I say nonsense. Republican Neocons wanted that war, desperately, believing they could force democracy on a nondemocratic population and bring about great profits to American oil companies. What short-sighted nonsense, though the oil companies and para-military firms all benefited. Did you?

Von Mises and the Austrian Economics is a pure, theoretical Libertarian approach that really makes a lot of sense. Were this to be honestly implemented, the world would be a terrific, place. All the discussion here with people taking hard positions about race, climate change, IQ, ideological extremism, and 8 U.S. Code 1365 are just foolish biases. They would all go away under an Austrian Economic approach. But it won’t change. Biases are ineradicable. You all want to tell everyone else what’s best and how to live. That’s not workable, of course. But, party on, boys, party on.

And that’s why you’re intellectually dishonest, Taliesin. Clear definitions are given I 8 USC 1101. “Illegal alien” only refers to unauthorized aliens who have been convicted of felonies and is used in the section of the immigration statute dealing with post-conviction process. It is both too narrow and too broad of a term for the purposes you want to use it for (i.e. The 11 million immigrants you would like to deport).

It is too broad because the term “alien” means anyone who is not a citizen or national and includes all non-immigrants, i.e. Persons who are not eligible for citizenship. Most of these non immigrant aliens are technically not subject to U.S. Laws and deportation has to be managed pursuant to relevant treaties, not U.S. Statutes. They are also, by definition, not eligible for amnesty because they are not eligible for citizenship under any circumstances.

It is too narrow because most unauthorized immigrants whom you seek to deport have not been convicted of felonies. Indeed, rounding up immigrants who have been convicted of felonies is not a particularly difficult task, as they tend to be in jail. If you were only concerned about deporting illegal aliens, there wouldn’t be much work to do.

“unauthorized alien” is also defined in 8 USC 1324a(h)(3)but this refers specifically to aliens not authorized to work, which obviously overlaps with unauthorized immigrants, but is not synonymous.

The closest thing to a proper statutory term for the 11 million persons in question is “unauthorized immigrant.” However, the statute never explicitly deals with deportable immigrants. For that, you have to go into the CFR. If you want a really precise term, you could also use “deportable nonresident immigrant.” But the truth is, the regs only ever refer to deportables as “respondents” because the regs are dealing with adjudication procedure.

If you want to keep using the term “illegal alien” go ahead, but be aware that your usage is imprecise and statutorily incorrect. The term “undocumented immigrant” is not 100% statutorily correct either, but it is no more a political fabrication than “illegal alien.” So ultimately, you’re being a politically correct jackass, just like the liberals you complain about.

It’s not so much that you can’t use the term “illegal alien,” it’s more that it isn’t the only term available and “unauthorized immigrant” is not a fabricated term that goes against the statute as Taliban had previously claimed. The statute and its accompanying regs do not provide a specific term for the group of potentially deportable Immigrants who are not resident aliens. In dealing with this group of people, the regs refer to them primarily as potential respondents in administrative hearings. There are other terms that pop up, such as “illegal alien”(aliens who have been convicted of felonies) and “unauthorized aliens”(aliens who are not authorized to work in the U.S.).

As I stated above, if you synthesize the definitions given at the beginning of the statute, probably the best term is either deportable nonresident or unauthorized immigrant, as those terms cover the most precise number of the 11 million in question.

To be fair, Ward, Bernie Sanders opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. So it wasn’t just Rockwell. Note: This is not to say I support Sanders. It’s just a bit of fact checking.

Also, about the Austrian School stuff you say “Were this to be honestly implemented, the world would be a terrific, place.” Well there are a lot of theories that would make the world a terrific place if you could just put them into practice. But that’s the problem with theories. They’re worthless if you can’t put them into practice.

8 USC 1252c also uses the term, stated as “an alien illegally present,” and that term is separate from felony conviction (thus the use of the word “and” in that provision). Moreover, while you say that “Taliban [sic] had previously claimed” that ““unauthorized immigrant” is … a fabricated term that goes against the statute,” that isn’t what I said – I said “undocumented immigrant” was a PC fabrication, not “unauthorized immigrant.” The link is here, comment of Oct 16 at 4:55 p.m.:

To sum up, “illegal alien” is a term that is actually in the US Code, and is used both to refer to someone with a felony conviction and, restated as “alien illegally present,” to refer to someone who may or may not have a felony conviction. It is a descriptor based in the law, even if it is imprecise and not exclusive. “Undocumented immigrant,” on the other hand, appears nowhere in the US Code – it is indeed a political fabrication in that it does not exist in the statute and is employed with the deliberate intention of minimizing the scope of the violations it opaquely describes.

But you did call me “intellectually dishonest,” a “politically correct jackass” and, more cleverly, “Taliban,” you questioned my intelligence, and you misstated my prior argument in order to further bolster your point, so I guess you win. Nice job! You have competition, though, as I’ve also been called a “moron” and a “crybaby” on these boards recently. Insults are inherently persuasive, as we all know, and a sure sign of confidence in one’s argument. Keep it up, guys!

Just like Latinx/La Tinks, which is funny because no one in real life uses such an absurd construction, and mocking it isn’t directed at actual Latinos and certainly not at any specific person on this board, but instead at PC language police who occupy themselves with developing new linguistic signals to show who’s in and who’s out.

Thank you for putting your points in Jeff Foxworthy format as I ain’t got nuff o that there book lernin to figure things out on my own. I will respond seriatim.

1 That dumpy Christian chick is really living rent free in your head isn’t she? Maybe you have a thing for her.
2 NAZIs? Weren’t they socialists? Seems like the grand kleegal (whatever the f&@k that is) was the democrat “lion of the senate” until recently.
3 Liberals expect so very little from blacks and latinos, what are we to think? Conservatives expect more.
4 White Christians are an oppressed majority, are we not?
5 I think it is more like 18 million illegal aliens. How many muslins came through at the same time?
6 I think they should be called “Wandering Honor Students” as that is all that liberals seem able to find when they pop out of the shadows.

Incidentally, if anybody knows how to go about living in the shadows, I would love to know how to get in on that.

@Groton: “Illegal Alien?” That’s funny, I always just called them by their proper name — Mexicans.

So you are actually a troll. This makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

@Will White Christians are an oppressed minority? Every president in the history of America has been a white Christian. And just about every member of Congress for about the first 150 years were white Christians. You’ve had every opportunity to not be oppressed. I expect more from you. See how that goes?

Read carefully won’t you? We are an oppressed majority. Also, I do not give office holders in the government as much importance as do you. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who will have a great deal of explaining to do if they arrive at the pearly gates.

So, I’m (almost) thrown off the blog because I accurately commented on Mr. Boyer’s affected, forced unbuttoned collar, but Chens allows, without reservation or pause, borderline racist, pseudo-intellectual talk about “Mexicans” (to mean all illegal immigrants) and illegal aliens (the rationale being that this term is fine because it’s included in “US Code”….just like ‘negro’ and ‘colored’ was a few decades ago)…..even though it has nothing to do with ‘style’ and is clearly offensive and ignorant.

Very well said. Who else is a Market Anarchist (in the early Rothbardian sense) here?

Spend less time arguing about the meaning of words and more time making your life and the lives of others better. See Milton Friedman’s son, David, for how an anarchocapitalist society might function: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

The Oppressed Christian majority? I suppose you ought to be oppressed for believing in those fantasies. Freud had it right. No one wants to die and religion–most especially Christianity and Islam (something you both have in common)–cornered the market on getting you to believe you don’t have to. All with no proof! But it isn’t PC to let you know you and your emperor are running around naked, especially on a trad clothing forum.

@ Will – I did read carefully and I understood you said oppressed majority. What I was simply saying was you’ve had every opportunity to pull yourself up out of oppression as a Christian, what with the nearly all of America’s leaders in the federal and state governments being Christians and a great many over the course of our history being white. Note: I don’t think Christians are oppressed at all, but that’s an argument for another time.

You say you think many governmental leaders who call themselves Christians are false Christians and that’s certainly your right and religious freedom. You would probably think I am a false Christian as well. Actually I’m Catholic so you probably don’t think I’m a Christian at all. I’m not saying that to be snarky or mean spirited. It’s just part of the nuance of our religion or, really, all religions.

Proof is unnecessary when your faith is strong. I know that you are trying to hurt my feelings but I mostly feel sorry for you as you seem to be angry. I would advise you to tread lightly regarding your feelings toward muslins and Islam as they seem to be less thick skinned than I.

Incidentally, I am wearing a red and white university stripe Troy Shirtmaker’s Guild OCBD, twenty five year old Polo khakis which are indestructible, Bass Weejuns re-soled and re-heeled with, of course, no socks. Trafalgar machine turned belt with engraved initials and an indestructible Sea Island Cotton crew neck sweater from college days. Crew cut and Purple Label folding sunglasses. Miles Davis’ Miles Ahead in the car as I am on the road to meet a client.

Years ago, I was working for a nonprofit which got funding from the state. I read Atlas Shrugged while working there and could see plainly all the flaws Ayn Rand wrote about on a daily basis. The people who were supposed to be served by the nonprofit’s programs weren’t; only the political and organizational aims of the state and the nonprofit were served. I literally got sick to my stomach seeing how utterly dysfunctional the system was. Those experiences led me to Murray Rothbard, von Mises, and Rockwell. It was tough for me because I am quite liberal in many respects. Over time, I’ve come to a more or less happy peace with liberal aims and libertarian means.

That is one benefit of truly free markets – liberals and conservatives are no longer forced to fight over a single gun. Though I am quite conservative in many respects, I have no reason to be combative with those who don’t share my ideas so long as the state is abolished/ineffectual.

Then again, using government to hurt your opponents will never get old for partisans – as this thread demonstrates wonderfully.

This discussion is going to go on forever. What do you hope to convince the other person to change how he sees the world?

You’re all wasting your time. I still can’t believe “illegal alien” is now considered a racial epithet. It has nothing to do with race. I know a German post-doc at Brown University right now whose visa has expired and technically is also an illegal alien (until he gets it sorted out). He is one security check point away from being deported. I wonder if you are offended by the term “illegal” or “alien.”

I have often felt confounded by such songs like “Englishman in New York” by Sting.

Wake me up when the term “minority” becomes offensive. God forbid it will have people feeling “minor.”

Language is certainly changing, and that’s a funny wisecrack about the feelings of inadequacy that must result from being minor instead of major.

I think the desire to erase the term “illegal alien” is the result of a recent wave backed by the rhetoric that people can’t be illegal, as in it’s not illegal to be a human.

Of course humans can do illegal things, which is what the term originally meant.

The “Latinx” that I’m now seeing on all the news sites was obviously done because Latino had a masculine suffix, and anything masculine in language is unacceptable. Yes in the interest of inclusion, should Asians be Asienz and Americans be Americanz, even though they don’t have gendered suffixes?

If we don’t change the language, it may be assumed that “Americans” only refers to a select group of people.

@CC – so, will you unilaterally or through a “vote” be throwing Groton off the blog? Let. Me. Guess. I’m glad that disagreeing with Mr. Boyer (or Fred Egan Castleberry) is more offensive than using ‘Mexicans’ as slang for all illegal immigrants…..never mind Groton’s long history of crossing all sorts of similar lines…..

I have thought much about this Donald Trump, and have come to the conclusion that he is exactly the right man at the right time in our nation’s history.

As he’s stated repeatedly, America does not need another “all talk, no action,” special-interest-appeasing politician in the Oval Office — Republican or Democrat.

ALL the politicians running on both sides are only out to further their own “career,” and won’t make the hard choices to save our country from the catastrophic direction — both socially and economically — we’re headed in. We need someone to finally do the “right thing” (no matter how drastic), and I see no one else out there besides Trump bold enough or willing to do it. His immense wealth puts him above the petty lobbyist milieu. And unlike Hillary, Rubio, and the other promise-them-everything and-say-anything-to-get-elected crowd, he has no “career” to lose in this, and this gives him a special advantage.

And yes, like millions of other white Americans, I’m tired of being judged by the color of my skin and not by the content of my character. No, I’m not writing this from the Birmingham Jail, but I think you get my point. In the end, Political Correctness causes nothing but resentment and anger — on both sides — and Trump’s total rejection of it I find highly admirable.

Trump reminds me of Winston Churchill — a flawed unlikely character who appeared on the World Stage at just the right moment. Despite many career setbacks (Gallipoli, etc.) no one else in British politics could have done what he did starting in 1940. I see this same unique trait in Donald Trump, and if he is not on the ballot next November, I will stay home.

@Groton76 – Irrational equivocating and false comparisons are your specialty (as are an unearned sense of victim hood and sophomoric, pseudo-intellectualism) – I get that. But your bigotry and prejudices are clear. No one is pre-judging you (as you have ‘Mexicans’ and any number of other groups across your fine mess of comments on here). I’m reacting, after the fact, to what you’ve clearly expressed. Own your opinions – you’re not a victim, you’re a bigot.

“The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
― Voltaire

“When you think about it, that we have massive industries that profit from sick people is kind of strange.”

And yet there is no better way yet found to minimize costs and maximize consumer benefit (and satisfaction) than the free market system.

Unfortunately, we no longer have a particularly free market; governmental interference in the markets has grossly distorted them, particularly in the realm of health care.

Once upon a time, people paid for routine health care expenses out-of-pocket, and used health insurance much like we still use car insurance: for unforeseen, catastrophic expenses. That all changed with Medicare and Medicaid. After those programs were introduced, the increase in health care costs started to exceed that of inflation in general (the same thing happened decades later with college tuition, after the government got into the student loan business).

If you want your health care costs to go down, then get the government out of that business. (Fun fact: since neither the Constitution nor any amendment to it authorizes the Federal government to provide health care, all Federal health care programs are, on their face, unconstitutional. Most people can’t see that, but here’s an article that might help: How Tyranny Came to America.)

I will add in passing that volunteer organizations, such as churches, the Shriners, etc., are also better at providing health care than the government.

@Henry Contestwinner. No. Medicare and Medicaid didn’t beam to earth mysteriously. They were devised because the ‘free market’, catastrophe coverage-only system you applaud was failing to protect or serve tens of millions of older and poorer Americans. This market failure was not only underserving “consumer benefit” it was driving up costs across the healthcare system.

There is no example of a working, successful model that removes government support entirely. No surprise, since unlike auto or home insurance, each and everyone of us will – without exception – require health care at some point in our lives….meaning that it is, by design, impossible for a private insurance model to work…there’s no way to spread cost/risk around when every customer is one.

The US federal government doesn’t – as you suggested and as is the case in other western nations – provide health care (for the exception of the VA). Private health care providers do. The government acts as an regulator and payer, which is nothing like being a health care provider.

@Henry Your constitutional argument is absurd. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were both meant to codify the most crucial rights of Americans and not to limit other rights that we came to need as this country matured. There is a lot that lives in the Bill of Rights that is not explicitly codified. Privacy, for instance?

It’s not really strange if you recognize that medicine is just another profession that must make a “profit” in order to exist. And in order to limit the number of sick people, they have to exist. Most of the revenue goes to funding R&D. The difference between a for-profit and a non-profit is accounting nomenclature (“net surplus” vs. “net income”) and tax treatment, 501(c)(3), etc.. Equity ownership can be tricky.

All of this can spell the difference between St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (non-profit) and St. Jude Medial Inc. (which trades on the NASDAQ).

If your comment was about whether Martin Shkreli is a d*ck, then according to a mutual friend who used to work with him, yes he is.

@Chewco – “most of the revenue goes to funding R&D…”? Whose revenue? Hospital revenue? Nope. Hospital revenue mostly pays for salaries and, in the case of for profit health systems, salaries and stock market returns. The average non-profit hospital CEO earns around $550,000 a year….given recent consolidation (and the growth of for profit health systems), many earn much more than that.

How about health insurance company revenue – you think that funds R&D? No sir. No it doesn’t.

That, more or less, leaves device, pharma, and supply manufacturers. While this is a diverse lot, many segments of these markets earn profits and revenues of upwards of 25-30%. Some of this is put back into R&D, but much isn’t. Of the top ten R&D spenders (across all industries) globally only 4 are from the healthcare sector (see Fortune magazine, 11/17/14). Roche, the highest healthcare organization on the list at #5, spends only 19% of its total revenues on R&D (the other 3 healthcare companies in the top 10 spend around 15%….J&J only spends 11.5%). Beyond the raw numbers, there’s also loads of research around the ineffectiveness and waste associated with much of this R&D….especially in the pharma space where the rush to bring new, questionably safe/meaningful drugs to market has led to costly recalls/lawsuits, major risks to public health, and a near trickle of new, novel, truly ‘blockbuster’ drugs in recent years.

So, I have a hunch where you’re getting your “news”…..but I’d recommend diversifying a bit before you pop off in public comment sections.

rmpmcdermott, you appear not to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; unfortunately, in the modern day, few do.

The Constitution lays out what the federal government may do; the traditional words are granted, delegated, and enumerated. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make the limits on the Federal government explicit: the Federal government may not do anything it is not specifically authorized to do by the Constitution or Amendments, and the powers not given to the Federal government are reserved to the states and people. This is black-letter law, but it has been ignored for about a century.

Nowhere in the Constitution or its Amendments has the Federal government been authorized to fund health care, ban tungsten filament lightbulbs, provide farm subsidies, make research grants, designate non-smoking areas, or do countless other things that we now take for granted. Therefore, all such programs are unconstitutional. This does not mean that they are bad programs or bad laws; it means that they exist outside the legal framework our government was founded on, which in turn means that the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land and we live in a post-Constitutional phase of America.

By the way, in what sense of the word right is health care a right? In what sense does health care exist on the same level as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”

@henry no, I do understand the constitution, and I’d appreciate it if you’d drop the condescending, holier than thou bullshit. I’m saying that there are some who think what’s enumerated in the Constitution is written in stone with no room for interpretation. There are others who believe that it is a living document and nuance can be read into it. That the framers left us enough room to grow as a country.

In fact those two opposing viewpoints are a classic dialectic. I believe one side and you believe the other. Unfortunately you seem to just want to lament that you’re smart and other people are stupid. I have no desire to do that.

I believe most of your comment was addressing the single line I wrote: ” Most of the revenue goes to funding R&D.”

I acknowledge that you able to gather bits of facts and numbers here and there and do some simple arithmetic. That’s quite alright. However, based on your long and colorful response, it is very apparent that you neither work in the finance nor healthcare sectors.

@chewco- Actually, I work for the largest medical device company on the planet (whose R&D spending by percentage of profits is no where near the top 10) and have spent my 16 year career in healthcare. CC can confirm this.

I wasn’t cherry picking facts and figures, I was referenced a single, recent article in a leading business magazine. Your facts and assumptions are simply incorrect.

“I call everybody from south of the border a Mexican. Why? Just because some white guy in the past got a map out and drew lines to separate the same people doesn’t make them different. They’re all Mexicans.”

Groton – ignore, for a minute, that the ‘line’ I was actually referencing was Christian’s, and that my point was the absurdity of threatening my banishment for Boyer related critical minutiae while you spew racist vitriol with abandon.

Now, you being criticized for clear cut bigotry is not, in its own right, an example of bigotry. It’s just you being criticized for clear cut bigotry, something I’m guessing you’re used to. Your claims and reactions, however, are a clear cut example of the misplaced, unearned sense of victim hood I referenced earlier. Interestingly, I find this tends to be a hallmark of many Trump supporters. That, and ironically and ignorantly backing a candidate who supports things you claim to vehemently oppose (e.g. Government sponsored, universal healthcare).

Groton, I’m guessing you mean the comedian Ralphie May. He was joking when he said that. He was being purposely absurd to shine a light on the particular insensitivity of Latino bigotry, something he speaks frequently about. He’s a professional comedian. You’re not.

The idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing document was settled long ago. Rmpmcdermott has it right.

To say that the Federal government may not do anything it is not specifically authorized to do by the Constitution is simply wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say that the Supreme Court possesses judicial review or that Federal Courts can nullify acts of other government branches, yet in 1803, Marbury v. Madison established the so-called expansion of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

Notably, the Madison in Marbury v. Madison was James Madison, the prime author of the Constitution, and along with Hamilton and Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers, the series of articles which advocated for the adoption of the Constitution. Madison would have been jumping up and down screaming fowl were the intent so bound and circumscribed.

There is no “post-Constitutional” phase. Who made that up? I sincerely hope it wasn’t a weatherman.

Making research grants, funding health care, school busing, etc. aren’t unconstitutional. If one has a constitutional issue with health care funding, it’s best to take it to the Supreme Court (rather than, say, a clothing forum). That did happen, of course. But I don’t quite remember John Roberts’s decision declaring Obama Care to be unconstitutional—twice!

Then I stand corrected. I actually wrote my comment thinking I would be wrong on one of my assumptions. The only reason I responded was because your comment struck me as coming from someone who didn’t analyze healthcare companies (or any sort of company) for a living. And I was obviously correct. My doctor, is an excellent epidemiologist, but doesn’t know anything outside his immediate field. Do you see where I am going with this?

Ah, Mr. Wickers! I have seen many dismissals of The Bell Curve, but I have seen nothing that demonstrates that either the authors’ cited facts are wrong, or that their arguments are flawed. I’m sure you would agree that those are the only two intellectually honest methods for demonstrating that someone else’s argument is mistaken.

Bringing up the move to defund Planned Parenthood, the border wall, and the like are merely changing the subject. But since you mention them…

The only non-arbitrary definition of when life begins is conception. We already recognize that killing a baby that the mother wants is murder, so how does someone’s different attitude towards the same action—killing a baby in the womb—change it from murder to a “choice”? (There’s a good video from Prager University, called “The Most Important Question about Abortion” that covers the arguments in a nutshell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMwkQVpy98A)

Latinos/Hispanics/whatever you want to call them are not natural conservatives and do not support many conservative positions, so appealing to them ends up being mindless pandering that only alienates the base. Furthermore, the majority of legal Hispanics support efforts to enforce immigration laws and our borders, so your talking point is simply wrong.

Beyond that, all I’ll say at this time is that I’m neither a Republican nor a conservative (as currently defined, anyway), so I generally don’t defend those groups.

Prager University isn’t even an accredited college. It’s run by a far-right talk radio host and its classes are a series of five-minute video messages talking at the student instead of engaging them in actual discussion. So, for me, at least, that’s not a credible source. And yes, I watched the video.

Having said all that, I do agree with you, Mr. Wickers, that our involvement in the Middle East has been a disaster all around. As for the justification, everyone agreed that Saddam had WMDs, and it was criminally negligent of GWB not to address that issue when WMDs were not found. Even so, Saddam’s Iraq was not our biggest threat in the area, so that leads me to ask, regarding the invasion of Iraq, cui bono? I wish I had a good answer to that question.

I am not as sanguine as you regarding Libertarianism, the central tenet of which is “the government is the problem,” coupled with a nearly Marxian “exerting power is nearly always wrong” theme. As Rick Darby put it, “[a]dolescent rebellion in nominal grown-ups is called libertarianism. (From his blog, Reflecting Light, June 11, 2008.) Fortunately, as noted above, it’s unlikely to get implemented any time soon.

Oh, and saying that someone is on “the wrong side,” and especially if it’s “the wrong side of history” (as our Dear Leader likes to do) is no more than a ploy to silence the opposition without providing an argument for why that person and/or position is wrong. Besides, we are making our history as we go. How do we know how our descendants will judge us? I fear they will revile us.

rmpmcdermott, I thought everyone knew that Prager “University” is Dennis Prager’s YouTube outlet. What he said in the video is not something that can be called “credible” or “not credible” the way those terms are usually used, because he’s not reporting facts: he’s making a moral argument. All you need is an understanding of the rudiments of logic to follow.

It boils down to this: are the fact he cited factual? Are his arguments logical?

That’s it. If there is an error in his facts or his reasoning, then he’s wrong. “Credibility” doesn’t enter in to it.

After reading your most recent posts and understanding the kinds of information to which you subscribe, the kinds of people you listen to and seem to admire, and what you think makes logical and moral sense, I realize you are just way too far to the right for you and I to ever agree on much. Can you even make a left turn while driving? In any event, I am not going to explain to you all the flaws and biases in the Bell Curve (those issues were put to bed within months after it was published 20 years ago) or give you my take on where libertarian views can be helpful because I know you won’t listen with an open mind. It would be a waste of my time.

I did make a voluntary donation to Planned Parenthood today. I thought you’d like to know that I told them that you inspired me to give them a little end-of-the-year money.

Well the site isn’t called Junior College Style (though maybe it should be: I was such a lazy high school student I had to go to one), so you guys should be able to handle dissenting views. That said, I just cut a few comments just to put down my moderator’s fist. The shorter the comment, the more likely it is to be useless name calling and not reasoned debate, the standard we should hold ourselves to.

I have been working on creating an “editor’s corner” where I plan to compile my op-eds and essays over the years, as well as to opine on current events. There will be a button at the top of the site where you can go there if you wish, and perhaps some of the “political” debate will start to migrate there.

But remember we’re seven years old and contentious issues have always arisen, and we’re at a particularly charged time right now with the campus protests, the attack on Paris, and the presidential election.

But I have faith in you all to comport yourselves like natural-shouldered gentlemen.

Also please remember that you are under no obligation to follow the debate threads, and that there are 1,200 posts from multiple writers on a wide range of topics that you can always go and revisit.

Just as you know you will never convince me of your positions, I know I will never convince you of mine. That’s OK; I’m not responding for your sake. Instead, I am writing for others who might read what I write. There are those who, if they encounter enough material exposing the man behind the curtain, will see his pyrotechnics and deception for what they are. I know, because I was once among the deceived. I also write for my fellow travelers, so that they will know, just as Sagan’s Ellie Arroway came to know, that they are not alone.

It’s nice that you gave some of your money to an organization that murders the defenseless, preys on the vulnerable, and targets minorities. If I might be so bold, may I suggest that your next donation be to Compassion and Choices? (That’s how the pro-euthanasia group formerly called The Hemlock Society rebranded itself.) We lag behind our more enlightened European brethren in this area. Not only do Europeans kill unborn children, they also kill the sick, the disabled, the depressed, the elderly, those in chronic pain, and, in Belgium, they kill sick and disabled children, too. In Holland, another country with legal euthanasia, they have an epidemic of “involuntary euthanasia,” which we, in our primitive state, would call “doctors murdering their patients.”

Thanks for resurrecting this old thread, Christian. I had forgotten to make a response to the estimable Mr. Wickers and his assertions that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” and that the issue “was settled long ago.” These assertions are flat-out wrong. Constitutional originalists, i.e., those who hold that the Constitution says what it says, does not say what it does not say, has no “penumbras and emanations,” and should be read more or less literally, might be in the minority, but some of them are justices on the SCOTUS.

We find ourselves in a strange post-Constitutional world, one in which the Consitution has not formally been overthrown, but it is nonetheless ignored. (I read recently that some lawyer recommended against studying the Constitution, saying it was useless, and that lawyers need to study only rulings on the Constition. Bizarre.) We further find ourselves in the situation in which the Incorporation Clause has been interpreted, perversely, to turn the Bill of Rights on its head. I will agree with Mr. Wickers that the approach he espouses is in the mainstream, but it is neither uncontroversial nor universally accepted, and is furthermore unconstitutional.

The most post-Constitutional issue of all is, of course, ObamaCare. It looks as though it will be repealed, but we still are in the post-Constitutional world wherein it was found valid. If the Federal government can require us to buy insurance, then it can require us to eat tofu, or exercise regularly, or engage in any other behavior our overlords see fit to impose on us. While Trump is a man with both extreme strengths and extreme weaknesses, the Trump insurgency just might steer us off of the path towards the abyss that we have been on for so long. At the very least, disaster hs been delayed, if not entirely averted.

As a non-american, can I just make one disinterested observation that strikes the billions of us who are watching the fight from the outside?

The normative (should/ought) proposition “white people should feel guilty” only ever appears in two forms.

1) “liberals say white people should feel guilty but this is false because x”

2) “We are not claiming white people should feel guilty, we are just saying y is the case and y is bad” where y is an empirical statement about demographic data in the USA that relates to people of African extraction.

So a simple way to settle the argument is this:

Does x disprove y?

Or does y disprove x?

Clearly x does not disprove y.

Clearly y does not disprove x.

So X may or may not be true – but can be disregarded, because it attempts to disprove a claim that no one makes.

And y may or may not be true – and needs to be answered, because it makes a claim in itself.

This explains why it’s so funny watching you guys turn your country into a boxing ring.

Anti-liberals are wildly swinging at thin air, and getting angrier and redder-faced by the minute because none of their punches are connecting and everyone watching keeps laughing, while liberals like mcdermott are politely coughing in the corner trying to get their attention for a second, because they know the rules of the fight in the good, decent, old America they grew up in – the America of EB White, and Mark Twain, and Walt Whitman, the America that was a huge and daring and beautiful social experiment in turning the liberal ideals of the enlightenment into a country, a people, a society of equals – the rules of the fight in that great, lost America strictly prohibit sucker punching a fool in the back of the head.

…and just in case anyone has the wit to present cherry-picked data in defence of the trivial claim that

1 – There exists in the population of America more than zero people who do make the claim “white people should feel guilty because x”

…allow me to agree. It’s a big country. Full of lots of people with different claims as befits a democracy. There do indeed exist more than zero people who make this claim. Although they are hard to find without actively seeking.

There also almost certainly exist more than zero needles in haystacks somewhere in America today. Although I don’t have any examples to hand.

There also exist more than zero people who make the claim they have been abducted by aliens. And that this is the key policy issue in America today. In fact, a vastly larger number. Much easier to find.

Let’s stick to double blind data instead of blind conviction.

Let’s swap empirical facts of statistical significance.

…Or would you rather change the subject to some anecdotal example about something loosely related?

Nath, it appears that you are saying that you’ll only be satisfied by “statistically significant” evidence of arguments about “guilt.” A think tank or university might be able to perform research of newspaper and magazine articles to determine how frequently such arguments are made, or not. No one here will be able to do that. However, anyone could spend five minutes in the archives of Slate or HuffPost, for example, and find several such articles. But that would seems to violate your ban on “actively seeking” anyone making such an argument.

In other words, you’ve set an impossible bar, and it appears that you’ll now gloat that no one could overcome it. Ok. You win. Nice job!

Win what? I didn’t make any argument about the claim of whether white people should feel guilty. Re-read what I wrote.

I made a claim about my observations of the argument you are having.

As I said, I’m watching the fight.

My claim was:

while watching, I have noticed that the claim…

1 “liberals say “white people should feel guilty”

…is frequent but the claim…

2 “white people should feel guilty”

…is not.

As an example, this very comments section includes people on both sides of the debate. The first claim is made several times in this comments section but the second claim is made zero times.

You are an example of someone who makes the first claim.

Not one participant provides an example of the second claim.

So within the frame of this debate, my observation is valid.

And to disprove my observation you simply need to provide any broader sample of people – where my observation is false.

That’s not an unreasonable request. In fact, it would be unreasonable to make your claim (1) if you DON’T have an example of a broader or more representative sample. Because if there isn’t one, you are admitting that you don’t have better grounds for your claim.

But I’m sorry I asked for significant evidence.

Do you have any insignificant evidence instead?

Or any significant non-evidence?

Or any insignificant non-evidence?

Because those four categories cover all possible forms of defence you have – not just in this contingent world, but all logically possible worlds.

So if you can’t provide any – you just lost the fight. And all possible fights.

Or is my observation wrong? Am I incorrect in any statement I have made? If so, which one?

Go on.

Pick one. Cherry pick one. Any.

I double dare you.

If you want me to jump in the ring, I will.

Because yes. I loved the America bastards like you are poisoning. And if you kill her, I will never ever forgive you.

None of us watching will.

And every last nasty comment you make today wil be evidence in the eyes of God or history one day.

Wow, I’m a “bastard’. Don’t tell my parents. I said “it appears” because I find your prose difficult to follow, not because I lack conviction. I didn’t write anything in this thread 14 months ago or now about “guilt” or what “liberals say,” so I don’t know what your problem is specifically with me. I don’t know if there are any “bastards like me.” If there are I’d like to meet them.

I guess you want some links or something. Again, I write “I guess” not because I lack conviction but because I’m not sure of what you’re saying or demanding. So anyway, how about this:

Ignorance is not a defence, Taliesin. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand.

Try again. Here is my claim condensed:

Me: The argument “white people should feel guilty” is rarely expressed except in the context of people who are attacking it.

And your only testable, verifiable claim in reply was this statement:

You: “…anyone could spend five minutes in the archives of Slate or Huff Post, for example, and find numerous examples”

This is a valid, testable proposition.

My minimal definition of “numerous” is 3 or more. My reasoning is that numerous is defined as “a great number, many” and 2 is the smallest plural number, so 3 is the smallest possible number that can be used in ANY context to designate “of LARGER magnitude comparatively”.

‘One’ cannot be considered “a great number, many” because many is only applicable to plurals. Therefore citing one example from Slate does not meet the criteria you set yourself.

So ok. I have conducted the following test:

1. Spend 20 minutes on Huff Post:

2. Find as many instances as possible where the phrase or general concept of “white guilt” is connected to a normative claim (a claim of the form “needs/must/should/ought”)
3. Present the sum total and evaluate if this meets your prediction of “numerous” using a minimal definition of “numerous”, ie 3

Results:

I found the three following possible examples.

1 “If I am willing to accept my inheritance of all the good they did, all the success they had, then I NEED to recognize the flip-side of that coin.”

2 “I’m a straight middle class white male in America, and I’m really uncomfortable. Right now, that’s how it SHOULD be… we NEED to feel uncomfortable because change is an uncomfortable process”

3 “If there is a place for white guilt, it SHOULD be in the Sudan: both south and Darfur. I had hoped that the British, given their colonial history, would have been more forceful in defending blacks in the Sudan. They have not.”

1 and 3 are conditional statements (they take the form “if x then y”) so strictly speaking are not simple propositions of the claim “white people should feel guilty”.

But really 1 is implicitly assuming x IS true, so I will count this as a valid example.

3 is PROBABLY assuming x is true, but it is drawing the conclusion that white guilt is proper in the case of British people in Sudan and NOT automatically, or more broadly, or in the case of America. So I am discounting it.

2 makes the explicit claim that discomfort IS required. And although it makes the implicit claim that this discomfort is different to guilt, it does not explicitly state so – which means I cannot allow the distinction. So by default it must be considered another example.

Conclusion:

I found two examples.

This fails the test you proposed.

I conclude that your claim is disproved.

And don’t say you don’t understand – because you proposed the experiment, albeit vaguely and evasively.

I invite anyone to conduct the same or a more rigorous test on the other source cited – Slate. I would do so myself but this would lead to bias in the data.

(By the way, I wasn’t familiar with Huff Post and, for what it’s worth, subjectively found the arguments made pretty weak, vague, impressionistic and assumptive more often than not. But they simply weren’t the arguments that Taliesin et al claim – and were often quite the opposite. This however was outside the scope of the test.)

Your argument seems to be with Groton, William Richardson and Chewco. This thread is old and I don’t know if they post here any more. I responded to you because I thought you set up a bogus standard of evidence. I still think that, even more so now. I don’t have a dog in the ‘white guilt’ fight. Read the thread – I never said anything about it. I don’t know why you are so angry, calling me a “murderous hateful bastard”, but the name-calling isn’t new on this thread — I was earlier called “Taliban”, for example. I don’t respond in kind, for reasons of my own.

I didn’t propose a “test” but rather said that if you want to find arguments advocating for “white guilt,” it’s very easy. I found the Slate article quickly. I just now found this HuffPost article, again very quickly and easily:

This one treats “white guilt” as a given in the liberal landscape, but criticizes it from a liberal/left standpoint as self-indulgent. This isn’t anything I know the first thing about, but it’s out there.

And in this one, the author says he feels “white guilt” about the Trayvon Martin case and says others should too:

Well you clearly don’t agree with my minimal definition of “numerous” as at least three.

You suggested two sources: Slate and Huff Post.

You have since cited two cases from Slate and one from Huff Post.

The first from Slate was completely valid. The second just cited actually disparages the notion that “white people should feel guilt” – dismissing it as an inadequate defence mechanism rather than a valid political position. (Again, the article is an appallingly sloppy and confused argument – but it isn’t the argument you claim it is. It’s actually a counterexample.)

The Huff Post example cited is completely valid. I suspect it did not surface in my search because – I have now discovered – the Huff Post I searched is a slightly different UK version.

So you have found one example in each of the two sources you yourself proposed. When you had the whole internet to pick from.

Jesus wept.

I think you conservative Americans scouting the horizon for enemies have got your telescope the wrong way round.